|
Please note: our decisions are published six weeks after they are issued to councils, care providers and the person who has made the complaint. The cases below reflect the caselaw and guidance available at the time of issue and the individual circumstances of each case.
London Borough of Bromley (20 002 703)
Summary: Mr G complains the Council refused his business a discretionary grant under a scheme to support businesses impacted by COVID-19. We find fault in some aspects of the Council’s administration of its scheme. However, we do not consider these caused Mr G an injustice.
London Borough of Haringey (21 000 672)
Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a housing benefit overpayment because the complainant appealed to the tribunal. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.
Herefordshire Council (20 005 873)
Summary: Miss X complains that the Council wrongly advised her to claim universal credit. She also complains about how the Council then handled this mistake. Miss X says this caused significant distress, caused her to lose trust, and meant she missed out on housing benefit and reduced council tax. She says she had to pay a large council tax bill. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault, and the fault caused Miss X injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Miss X to reflect the injustice caused.
Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 001 034)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant is not entitled to Council Tax Support. This is because the complainant could have appealed to the Valuation Tribunal and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
London Borough of Islington (21 001 088)
Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his business rates liability. We will not investigate this complaint because there is no evidence that the alleged fault of the Council caused significant injustice to warrant investigation.
Torbay Council (20 008 778)
Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to register her business as the correct ratepayer at a property in 2019 and so wrongly refused rates relief and a grant in 2020. Miss X says she has suffered anxiety, business risk, time and trouble. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making but we find fault in its communications with Miss X. We recommend the Council provides Miss X with an apology and payments for uncertainty, time and trouble.
Luton Borough Council (20 009 517)
Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s handling of an application for council tax reduction. Although the process was complicated in the complainant’s case, this was largely because of circumstances beyond the Council’s control. The Council was at fault, however, for wrongly inviting the complainant to make an appeal to the Valuation Tribunal, which the Tribunal had no power to hear. This did not cause the complainant an injustice, but the Council has agreed to take steps to avoids a similar fault in future.
Manchester City Council (20 010 484)
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse rates relief and a grant, causing his business financial loss. We find no fault in the Council’s decision making process.
Bromsgrove District Council (21 001 556)
Summary: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council failed to check incorrect precept figures her parish council provided. This is because Miss B has not suffered significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
Luton Borough Council (20 006 878)
Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s calculation of her housing benefit overpayment. We have found the Council was at fault for not telling her it moved housing benefit payments to cover her council tax arrears. This caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty and confusion. The Council agreed to make a £100 payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice its actions caused.
London Borough of Brent (20 005 870)
Summary: The Council failed to consider evidence Mr X’s tenant was in eight weeks arrears of rent before paying her housing benefit. This is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him an amount equal to that paid to his tenant.
Arun District Council (20 006 763)
Summary: Mr B complains the Council wrongly refused his business a small business grant. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in the Council’s decision.
London Borough of Redbridge (21 001 370)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council wrongly accused the complainant of benefit fraud. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the complainant appealed to the tribunal.
Charnwood Borough Council (21 001 438)
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council unreasonably obtained a Liability Order against him for unpaid council tax. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council remedied the complaint.
Tandridge District Council (21 001 541)
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with the complainant’s council tax. We are unlikely to find fault in how it has dealt with her application for council tax support or in its recovery of unpaid council tax. The complainant can appeal against any decision on her council tax liability or her entitlement to council tax support.
|
